Multiple Perspectives on the Accessibility of E-Learning in Canadian Colleges and Universities

Abstract

An exploratory study identified and compared the views of 77 campus disability service providers, 38 professors, and 45 e-learning professionals from Canadian colleges and universities regarding their experiences with e-learning and its accessibility to students with disabilities. Findings indicate that all groups saw benefit in having someone who makes e-learning accessible to students with disabilities on campus and that problems related to e-learning accessibility were most likely to go to campus disability service providers and least likely to e-learning professionals. Only half of the participants indicated that professors are taught about e-learning accessibility, that there is someone on campus who makes e-learning accessible, that accessibility is a criterion for selecting new types of e-learning, and that their school has e-learning accessibility guidelines or policies. These findings suggest that important e-learning accessibility problems remain. Recommendations for colleges and universities on how to increase e-learning accessibility are provided.

The Science of Mindfulness-Based Interventions and Learning: A Review for Educators

“…One key advantage of digital mindfulness-based interventions (d-MBIs) is their accessibility. d-MBIs can reduce geographical, logistical, and financial constraints that would otherwise prevent access to training (Asuncion et al, 2010). d-MBIs can also be effectively standardized.…”

K–12 Technology Accessibility

“…The message from the federal government about technology accessibility is over a decade and a half old and has been communicated in statutes, regulations, and policy. Unfortunately, however, technology accessibility, as an innovation, has not yet fully diffused in K–12, as evidenced by (1) the plethora of inaccessible technologies present in K–12 classrooms (Asuncion et al, 2010; Bray et al, 2003; Fajardo-Flores et al, 2007; Fichten et al, 2009; Kamei-Hannan, 2008; Phipps & Kelly, 2013; Schaffhauser, 2013) and (2) the grave concerns expressed by disability rights organizations about inaccessible instructional technologies used in K–12 classrooms (National Federation of the Blind, 2015; Nightingale v. Seattle School District , 2014; Riccobono et al, 2015; Riccobono & Rosenblum, 2016).…”

“…Discussions of inaccessible instructional technologies in the literature have focused on Internet-based technologies, which are common in both e-learning and traditional face-to-face learning environments. Examples of inaccessible technologies that can be found in K–12 classrooms and are likely to pose barriers for students with disabilities include learning/content management systems (Fajardo-Flores et al, 2007), school websites (Bray, Flowers, & Gibson, 2003; Bray, Flowers, Smith, & Algozzine, 2003; Krach & Jelenic, 2009; Opitz, Savenye, & Rowland, 2003), computer-adapted testing (Kamei-Hannan, 2008), and other e-learning resources (Asuncion et al, 2010; Fichten et al, 2009; Phipps & Kelly, 2013). Studies examining the accessibility of K–12 websites found that 74.3% of 120 school district websites contained accessibility barriers (Bray, Flowers, & Gibson, 2003) and 57.4% of 244 elementary school websites contained accessibility barriers (Bray, Flowers, Smith, et al, 2003).…”

“…Low levels of technology accessibility awareness have been reported in the fields of education and computing (Cragg, Carter, & Nikolova, 2013; Edyburn, 2008; Wisdom et al, 2007). Furthermore, there is evidence of inaccessible technology in K–12 education (Asuncion et al, 2010; Bray, Flowers, & Gibson, 2003; Bray, Flowers, Smith, & Algozzine, 2003; Fajardo-Flores, Losoya-Castrejon, & Velazquez-Vaca, 2007; Fichten, Asuncion, Barile, Ferraro, & Wolforth, 2009; Kamei-Hannan, 2008; Phipps & Kelly, 2013; Schaffhauser, 2013), a fact that might lead one to believe that some K–12 educators are unaware of technology accessibility.…”

Engaging ignored stakeholders of higher education accessibility practice: analysing the experiences of an international network of practitioners and researchers

“…Alongside the argument that stakeholders should have shared or distributed expertise is the claim that that there has been a tendency for some stakeholders to rely on others to take responsibility for leading change in accessibility and digital inclusion practices. For example, in a survey of disability service providers faculty and elearning professionals in Canada, Asuncion et al (2010) found that campus disability service providers were most likely to believe that problems related to the accessibility of e-learning were their responsibility and e-learning professionals were least likely to claim responsibility. Observing UK practice, JISC (2006) and Mariger (2011) both 7 noted that there had been a tendency to rely on disability officers and support services to take the main responsibility for accessibility.…”